Warbler said:
so you are comparing a bum on the street stealing food from a stranger to fetus naturally taking nutrition from the mother? I see that as a good comparison. Neither a baby nor a fetus can fend for itself. They need to be taken care of by someone. As for the bum on the street, there are charities and food stamps to use. Just what do you expect a fetus to do? I don't think we have the medical knowledge needed to remove a living fetus from the mother and provide it with the necessary nutrition it needs to survive and develop into a baby. Until we do, I think it preferable that the fetus remain inside the mother until born.
Even if such a machine were invented where a fetus could be taken out to grow into a baby without a womb you can bet it won't likely be used for the majority of abortions. Whatever medical process it would be is likely to be expensive. Most likely to be used by the rich so that the birthing/carrying a kid process wouldn't make her fat.
That aside that homeless person is still a person. Whom pro-life advocates would fight to keep alive at the point in time when they're a fetus. Yet when born, and as many children do, grown up. It's wrong to do something illegal to ensure survival because there are choices. Even though stealing food from a supermarket physically hurts no one. Forcing a Woman to carry a baby to term is 99% guaranteed to harm her in some way. (99% because of the rare 1% where they don't even realize they're pregnant.) Charities can run out of food. Food stamps can be a hard process to get, or once you do get them they can be stolen. If your physically disabled getting a lawyer to get disability pay can put you 5K in debt after you win your case. Months afterwards are spent paying off your lawyer's fees. It's sometimes not so easy to get food. I'm just talking about those previous options from an american perspective. There are bound to be other difficulties, elsewhere in the planet, that I haven't listed here.
The point is, that starving person is still a person who's doing something to try to survive. A fetus has a village of pro-life people fighting for it to be born at all cost. Once born that village turns a blind eye "nope it's your life now. Someone else take care of it."
Warbler said:
twister111 said:
The quality of health for that person is a lot better aborting early. Hypothetically you hear a story on the news where a Woman had to get 20 stitches, or another story with a huge cut across her abdomen. Then you hear that she could've avoided such injury. It's hard not to instantly jump to the thought of "well why didn't you stop that?!" Isn't it? Even though you know I'm talking about a baby being born.
your last sentence already answered your question as why you didn't stop that.
So you'd want someone to have possibly hard to pay medical expenses, injuries, irreversible changes to their body, and needed time to recover against her will? Just so your choice to be pro-life is appeased to, and there's another life on this planet that still needs to be taken care of well after birth.
Warbler said:
twister111 said:
I've only scratched the surface here. There's also the quality of life for the child after it's born, coming into the world unwanted already
again, when you talk about deciding whether the kid is better dead than alive, you are playing God. Also remember as for being unwanted, there is always adoption.
Adoption does not, and will never solve the problem of a child coming into the world unwanted already. There's a tv cliche of the mother who gives a kid up for adoption, but she actually wanted the kid. Just wasn't the right time to raise it for her. Nice and rosy for tv. Where real life is concerned she just might not have wanted the kid. Kids don't always get adopted even if they're put in the system. Even if they are. They could be adopted because they tried to have a kid but failed. Then, hey, they suddenly manage to get a kid. Suddenly they pay more attention to their "real" kid. An adopted kid could spend his/her entire life wondering "why didn't my biological parents want me?" Of course there's always a possibility they could have a good life, but it doesn't automatically mean adoption is some magic good life assurance system. I'm not playing God. I'm looking at this subject from all the possibilities I can imagine, or heard of happening. I see a picture that isn't always bright and cheerful.
Warbler said:
CP3S said:
There are fates worse than death, to use a cliche.
perhaps there are, but do you want others deciding that for you? Do you want others deciding for you when your fate is worse than death and therefore deciding to do away with you? I say we can't play god. If we have to choose for another person, I we should assume life is always preferable to death. The only person who should have the right to decide if death is preferable to life for a individual is the individual themselves.
Yet you feel confident in your decision to determine for someone else in this situation. "Playing God" isn't just a phrase exclusive to deciding someone's death. Your just as much "playing God" by saying that those people should be born.
Warbler said:
theprequelsrule said:
I feel that the opposition to abortion, from the ancient world to today, is based on keeping women under control of men.
I don't wish to be rude but that is bs. I have no desire to "keep women under the control men". Also remember many people opposed to abortion are women themselves.
Well it's not exactly easy to be a woman who doesn't want kids. Everything in society, in terms of parenting, is built up to make a woman feel bad if they don't want kids. From childhood rhymes
"blank and blank kissing in a tree,
K.I.S.S.I.N.G.
First comes love,
Then comes marriage,
Then comes a baby in a baby carriage."
To story lines on tv shows. In secret life of an american teenager (I HATE THIS SHOW!!! I know this story line because some of my family likes it. HATE HATE HATE THIS SHOW!!!) there was this teenage girl who wanted an abortion. The father was opposed to it. The mother was fighting for her right to choose. The day before the abortion she decided to go through with having the kid anyway. Some birth control ads have the woman portrayed with 2 or 3 kids already. With the implication that should you want more kids you can stop the treatments. It's a huge amount of pressure for women to have kids.
darth_ender said:
Consequences to your actions? Whose actions? I think the only people who made a choice here are the parents who had sexual intercourse. Who is so stupid that they don't know that sex leads to babies? Mom and Dad made the choice, not the child. Don't you think that they should be the ones to face consequences for <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline;">their</span> actions?
So are you against birth control too? Even if you use birth control it's not always 100%. Still are you against heterosexual sex unless the couple in question wants a kid at that moment? Is masturbation by a guy reckless abandonment in your eyes because the sperm could not get to an egg? Simply put a bunch of cells that could one day be a baby if left to grow are a lot different from someone who already sustains themselves on their own blood system. I mean guys don't save sperm after every ejaculation, drive to the sperm bank, and make a deposit to ensure it's survival. That's a lot easier then a woman carrying a kid to term. Forget hypothetical situations where guys could carry a kid to term. Guys could do this for every ejaculation if they felt so strongly that potential life of a few cells is so important.
darth_ender said:
Think of a woman in an abusive relationship. This man threatens to stalk her and hunt her down wherever she goes. The easiest course of action may be to simply shoot him while he sleeps. That's <span style="text-decoration: underline;">self-defense</span>, right? I think you know that is wrong.
No not really, at least killing him after she's already gotten away from the attack is slightly wrong. During an abusive beat down though, are you saying the victim shouldn't fight back?
darth_ender said:
But when it comes to abortion, I see very, very little grey. You are taking an innocent person's life. I've mentioned my grey area, and even there I think that much consideration should be given before performing an abortion.
I think a lot of consideration should be given too. It's not a light decision to make but, I feel it should at least be an option. Taking that option away, is like making it law that every time a guy masturbates he must save it to make a deposit in a sperm bank.
